Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,908   Posts: 1,556,129   Online: 1191
      
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54
  1. #1
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31

    Leica Users: Rigid 50/2 Summicron or Nikkor 50/1.4 Sonnar?

    I have an early 50/1.4 Nikkor in LTM that I've
    been shooting off and on with an M3. It's a
    Sonnar design, supposedly optimized for work
    close in and wide open -- what I typically do.
    For illustration, I've posted a sample from my
    Nikkor (at f/2) here in the APUG forums:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=36142

    I've been told that I should consider using a
    rigid Summicron on the camera. Okay: But
    might I expect the Summicron to compare to
    my Nikkor?

    Apologies if this has already been discussed
    elsewhere.

    Sanders

  2. #2
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Hey Sanders

    For portraits, I shoot them both !

    The mid '50s Summicron lacks the hot Sonnar look,
    and has an across the field clarity. Wide open, it hints at soft tonality.

    If I want to draw peach fuzz on a young cheeks, the Nikkor.
    Lighting falling on the contours of a ... more mature beauty, Summicron.

    Subtle, subtle, subtle. A lot like a mid '50s Planar on your Rollei.

    The only way to tell for sure is to shoot them side by side.

    don

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    173
    The Summicron is lower contrast, will not look as sharp. It will preserve more shadow detail.

    If you can find a collapsible Summicron in good condition, also look at it. Cost about 1/3 less than a Rigid. Not quite as sharp, but close.

    Some shots with my Collapsible and Type I Rigid Summicron on the Leica forum, here:

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...son-shots.html

    Hopefully you can see the images. If not, register for free and then you can view them.

  4. #4
    kennethcooke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Luddite- West Riding
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by lens_hacker View Post
    The Summicron is lower contrast, will not look as sharp. It will preserve more shadow detail.

    If you can find a collapsible Summicron in good condition, also look at it. Cost about 1/3 less than a Rigid. Not quite as sharp, but close.

    Some shots with my Collapsible and Type I Rigid Summicron on the Leica forum, here:

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...son-shots.html

    Hopefully you can see the images. If not, register for free and then you can view them.
    I agree a collapsable Summicron will not be as sharp as a current rigid Summicron but I would say, as someone who has used both and owns a 50mm Summicron current model that the 50mm Summicron is far sharper than a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor. In fact you would need to be careful using a 50mm Summicron for sensitive portraits of the fairer sex, they my not thank you for it's searching images
    Last edited by kennethcooke; 10-27-2008 at 03:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept"-H.Cartier-Bresson

    Regards Kenneth

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    173
    There are a number of variations in the Summicron. The original Collapsible used Thorium glass, then moved to something less radioactive. The Collapsible, Type I Rigid, and Dual-Range Summicron where 7 elements in 6 groups. Lower contrast, high resolution. The Type 2 Rigid went to 6 elements in 5 groups, a bit higher contrast than the older ones. Finally, the Summicrons went to 6 elements in 4 groups- Same as the 1930s Summar. It is higher contrast, probably sharper. But many users prefer the "look" of the older glass.

    Type 2 Rigid Summicron, wide-open on the M2:

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...ing-lunch.html

    Price-wise, the Collapsible Summicron and Type 2 Summicron can be had in the $300~$400 range for a nice one. The Type 1 Rigid goes for a bit more, and the recent ones are in the $1000 and above range.

  6. #6
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Thanks, all, for the observations.

    Don suggests the Nikkor is the
    sharper, Kenneth gives the nod
    to the Summicrons.

    I guess, in the end, I like the look
    of the negatives from the Nikkor
    and so I should leave well enough
    alone and focus my efforts on
    shooting, not equipment. I just
    wish it were more compact.

    Sanders

  7. #7
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Sanders

    Talking about sharpness really is pretty counterproductive since the word really has no meaning.
    Acutance, resolution, sure.
    Intuitively, there IS a distinction,
    and THAT is pretty subjective. Unless you, Kenneth, and I know each other,
    there isn't much useful information we can share.

    (I actually think that the two lenses aren't comparable,
    yet they are complimentary !)

    Sometime, borrow / rent an old Summicron, give it a spin.

    Then, you tell US !

    In the meantime, SHOOT those pictures.

    d

  8. #8
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Don, fair enough.

    When you say the lenses aren't comparable,
    but complementary, that is the beginning of
    what I was trying to fathom in this thread --
    how do the two lenses differ? And I was
    grateful to have your thoughts on that. But
    you are right, that subtleties of lens performance
    being what they are, language often fails to
    provide a satisfactory medium for the explanation.
    And scans of negatives viewed on a computer
    screen do very little to illuminate.

    Sanders

  9. #9
    luvcameras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    381
    I have always questioned Dante Stella's comments that the Nikon RF 50/1.4 was "optimized" for up close shooting.... In all my years of reading and camera collecting - I have never heard that comment elsewhere. While I understand Nikon allowed the lens to focus closer than normal, it was uncoupled from the Rangefinder camera's focusing ability - so I am not sure that argument stands up. Any know more about this ?

    Dan

    Nikon RF Page http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/nik.htm
    Leica SM Page http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/c.htm
    Antique and Classic Camera BLOG
    www.antiquecameras.net/blog.html

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell View Post
    Hey Sanders

    For portraits, I shoot them both !

    The mid '50s Summicron lacks the hot Sonnar look,
    and has an across the field clarity. Wide open, it hints at soft tonality.

    If I want to draw peach fuzz on a young cheeks, the Nikkor.
    Lighting falling on the contours of a ... more mature beauty, Summicron.

    Subtle, subtle, subtle. A lot like a mid '50s Planar on your Rollei.

    The only way to tell for sure is to shoot them side by side.

    don
    I prefer the bokeh of the Summicron ( knew an old fisherman with that name- couldn't swim but was lucky enough to fade away naturally.)
    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin